Palin at event supporting Bachmann, image MSNBC
For many American’s the postcard in the mail, calling for one to participate in the process of the American Legal System known as Jury Duty, is a challenge of not how to serve when called, rather how to get out of serving as part of a “jury of one’s peers”. In response to Sarah Palin’s call to Jury Duty, late night talk show Comedian, Jay Leno, quipped (paraphrasing), “anyone too stupid to get out of jury duty should not be President”. There are those who will not register to vote, fearing that the dreaded postcard will end up in their mailbox, look for any way in which to make themselves unavailable to serve – however, when one seriously looks at the slight inconvenience of answering the call to serve on a jury, it is with an eye towards the duty and the privilege as a United States citizen, to be able to participate in the process of the U.S. justice system. In addition, one might need a jury of one’s peers at one point in their lifetime; therefore, karma may come in to play. Although the media is questioning the why, when and where’s of Palin’s jury duty, one has to ask, why on earth would the State of Alaska give anyone, including someone calling from CBS, ABC, MSNBC the date, place and time, of the former Governor’s call? That would do one of two things, either confirm completely that she has, indeed been called, (who makes that up?), and they (media) would not mention it again, or, the alternative, the ever “truthful” media would publish the date, time, and place, so that Palin’s might find the courtroom packed with onlookers, and media, disrupting the court, and the proceedings. Would a civil trial be mocked, what if she were not chosen to be on a jury? That would become huge news. The media is, in a word, ridiculous. (Check out ABC’s, questioning whether or not Palin actually has jury duty or is using “jury duty” as an “excuse” of some sort.)
When one answers the call, (this blogger finds it impossible to ignore, no matter the inconvenience, the call is a duty and a privilege, and allows one to participate in the process of justice), one is, with perhaps fifty to one hundred other individuals called on a specific date to a specific court (Federal, County), where one sits for either minutes or hours before being either called into a jury pool, or dismissed until the “next postcard” arrives. If one is called into the pool, one is then given a number; potential jurists are called before the lawyers for both the prosecution and the defense, asked a series of questions, and then either chosen or dismissed. If chosen, depending upon the type of trial, one may be in that courthouse for a day or weeks. It can be inconvenient; however, it also proves that our system of government is based on the individual’s ability to appeal to a jury of one’s peers. Therefore, when one does not try to “get out” of being on a jury, one is being civic minded, patriotic, and smart, whereas, should someone like Mr. Leno (or his joke writer) find themselves in the position where they might need a jury of their peers, they might hope that the individuals chosen, were as smart as say, the former Governor of Alaska, especially if innocent of charges.
One has to ask: do the critics of jury duty even vote, or participate in any other way besides, perhaps, paying taxes to the State or Federal government?
Kudos to Palin for stepping up and for the State of Alaska for protecting both the court and Palin (one would be they were protecting the Court first and foremost.)
Michelle Bachmann and her fundraising methods are the focus of an AP article: “Small checks drive Michele Bachmann's big bucks”. The article compares and contrasts Bachmann’s fundraising style with that of President Obama and former President George Bush (one should start to notice that any Republican candidate running, with any article printed, is lately, somehow, compared to George W. Bush – do they never give up?), both of the aforementioned culled the majority of their funds from major donors; those giving the maximum, while Bachmann’s funds come from individual donors, giving small amounts over an extended period of time. It is as if to say: Bachmann’s style (which is then dissected as to how fundraisers approach the donors and the costs of fundraising), may not bring in the big bucks necessary to say, out fundraise one of the “boys” be it Obama or George Bush (who is, to the best of anyone’s knowledge not running nor even involved in the process of 2012). That said, those small donors quoted in this particular article, are from places as far flung as New York, and, according to the AP, they are “retired or own small businesses” just the sort of people one might “profile” as “Tea Party Members”. Also noted is that Bachmann is climbing in the Republican Polls, specifically after her debate performance on CNN’s most recent GOP debate (If one could call it that – given the circus like atmosphere, it had a game show flavor).
Both women, it should be noted, have been outspoken in their beliefs regarding patriotism, the way things should be run (their opinion) and both have been eviscerated for being “women” in a man’s world, not just by the left, (which one would anticipate – see women on women running for President vis a vis Hillary Clinton in 2008 – the great disappearing act – or woman choosing the “rock star” over the more qualified woman), but the GOP “establishment”, or those GOP elite, beltway types, whereas anyone without a country club membership and an Ivy League Degree need not apply. Also, if you are a woman in the GOP, you might want to join say, a group called the “pink elephants” and help support the candidate (male or female) by sporting a button. Although Palin has, at times, embraced, the pink elephants, one has to ask, what color is applied to the male counterparts? Blue? Mamma Grizzly is preferred, or how about woman, female, or just plain, non-descriptive: candidate. Why the need to distinguish between male and female in this particular arena, unless of course, it is to say: women are equal. Are the men called “Blue Elephants, or maybe almost as smart and or as savvy and or as popular as the women? (Referring to so called “men” – with noted exceptions of fearless Rick Perry of dog defending, coyote shooting fame: see (this is hysterical) The Washington Posts: ) “Texas Gov. Perry fatally shoots coyote”).
How rich would our nation be, if in the 2012 campaign cycle, not one but two, or maybe three (any pink donkey’s out there want to take a jab at the President?) women, got on their patriotic, selfless, nation serving soapboxes and gave all of us an opportunity to actually have a choice besides the boys? Perhaps, just perhaps, they may, in the long run, prove to be more capable of the job, which requires nerves of steel, a certain fearlessness of the “politically correct things to say and do”, the ability to make quick decisions, multi-task, survive on little sleep, delegate, and achieve great successes, while being somewhat humble about the whole process – in other words, what every woman, regardless of party, socio economic rung, degree or not, achieves running a household and working on a daily basis.
Are the aforementioned two women right for the job? Is the country ready for a woman? Will the nation ever be ready for a woman to govern? How’s the success rate for the men been so far? How do they compare and contrast to their male counterparts? Are they credible and experienced? Can we afford not to take these women seriously? Those are the questions all voters must ask themselves as we get deeper into the process.
Some see the obvious: Freedommist.blogspot.com utopian Conservative Feminist? Perhpas, or no?
Bachmann Palin (either way) 2012 - image freedommist blog
No comments:
Post a Comment